Ex Parte Udall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2013

11785826 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH F. UDALL and PETER K. BEARDSLEY
____________________

Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4-16, and 18-28. Claims 2, 3, and 17 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 22 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine mounting arrangement
for mounting a gas turbine engine on a pylon, the
mounting arrangement comprising:
a front mount connected to a first pylon
connector;
a rear mount connected to a second pylon
connector, wherein the front and rear mounts are
axially separated from one another; and
a fail-safe mount connected to a third pylon
connector, wherein said fail-safe mount is axially
spaced from the front and rear mounts, wherein the
fail-safe mount does not transmit loads between
the engine and the pylon except in the event of
failure to either the front or rear mounts so that any
load combination on the front and rear mounts may
be transferred to the fail-safe mount.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ellis (US 5,927,644; iss. July 27, 1999);
Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826

3
2. Claims 5-11, 18-22, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis and Harper (US 2005/0271503 A1;
pub. Dec. 8, 2005); and
3. Claims 12-16 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ellis, Harper, and Stretton (US 2005/0230532
A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2005).

OPINION
Claims 1 and 4
The Examiner finds that the aft mount 16 in Ellis includes each of the
claimed front, rear, and fail-safe mounts. Ans. 3. Appellants contend that
“[t]he claimed front and rear engine mounts are well known terms in the art
and are not interchangeable, as demonstrated by the . . . written description
. . . and the use of these terms in Ellis.” App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that
because the terms “front mount” and “rear mount” have special meanings to
one skilled in the art, the aft mount 16 in Ellis can only be considered the
claimed rear mount, not the claimed front, rear, and fail-safe mounts
combined. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2.
In support of this position, Appellants point to page 7, lines 17-27, of
the Specification and to the general disclosure of Ellis. App. Br. 4-5.
Appellants’ Specification does not further define the front and rear mounts
or require that the front and rear mounts are limited to a particular structure,
location, or function. Instead, the Specification simply defines the front and
rear mounts as “compris[ing] any conventional front and rear mounts.”
Spec. 7, ll. 18-19. According to the Specification, the front and rear mounts
each accommodate vertical, side, and thrust loads. Spec. 6, ll. 11-16; 7, ll.
Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826

4
19-21. Appellants do not point to any particular portion of Ellis and provide
no further evidence to support a special meaning for “front mount” and “rear
mount.”
Further, based on Appellants’ arguments, it is unclear what structural
or functional features are encompassed by the claimed “front mount” and
“rear mount” according to Appellants. Appellants have offered no evidence
or explanation as to what structure or function distinguishes a “front mount”
from a “rear mount” to one skilled in the art. Appellants only rely on the
titles “front mount” and “rear (aft) mount” appearing in both the
Specification and Ellis, with nothing more, as an indication that the “front
mount” cannot be part of the “rear mount” or that the claimed front mount,
rear mount, and fail-safe mount differ in structure or function from Ellis.
However, the test for anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the Examiner’s
finding that the aft mount 16 in Ellis includes a front mount, a rear mount,
and a fail-safe mount is reasonable and we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred.
Appellants further contend that “each of the claimed front, rear and
failsafe mounts have associated first, second and third pylon connectors,
which Ellis does not disclose.” App. Br. 6. However, the Examiner finds
that Ellis discloses “a first pylon connector (fig. 2, left lug 22, or
alternatively left faster 48),” “a second pylon connector (fig. 2, right lug 22,
or alternatively right fastener 48),” and “a third pylon connector (fig. 2: pin
38, or alternatively another of the four fasteners 48, see fig. 3).” Ans. 3.
Appellants have not apprised us of Examiner error because Appellants have
failed to explain why the Examiner’s findings are incorrect.
Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826

5
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 4 is not argued separately and thus
falls with claim 1.
Claims 5-11 and 18-21
Claims 5-11 and 18-21 depend from claim 1. Appellants’ sole
argument regarding the rejection of claims 5-11 and 18-21 is that Harper
fails to remedy perceived deficiencies in the disclosure of Ellis. Because we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, there are no deficiencies for Harper to
remedy. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5-11 and 18-21.

Claims 22, 27, and 28
Claim 22 recites the front, rear, and fail-safe mounts, similar to claim
1. Claims 27 and 28 depend from claim 22. Appellants initially argue that
Harper fails to remedy perceived deficiencies in the disclosure of Ellis.
These arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. See Ans. 5-6, 14-15.
Appellants also argue that Ellis does not teach the specifically claimed
gas turbine mounting configuration of the front mount, rear mount and fail-
safe mount recited in claim 22, and Harper does not disclose these features.
See App. Br. 9-10. Appellants further argue that “Ellis provides a fail-safe
mount that caters for component failure only within the rear mount 16 itself
rather than a complete failure of a whole mount/pylon connector and Harper
does not even disclose any failsafe engine mount.” App. Br. 10. Appellants
additionally contend that the Examiner admits that “Ellis does not show the
claimed front mount.” App. Br. 9. These arguments do not persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s finding that Ellis discloses the claimed front mount,
rear mount, and fail-safe mount. See Ans. 5-6, 14-15. This argument also is
Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826

6
inconsistent with the rejection because the Examiner finds that Ellis
discloses “[a] front mount (fig. 2, left link 32)” (Ans. 5; see also Ans. 15).
Appellants also contend that “[t]he Examiner further admits that
Harper is silent on the ‘engine-to-pylon mount, or details of the aft structure
of the engine.’” App. Br. 9. While the Examiner notes that “Harper is silent
on an engine-to-pylon mount,” the Examiner reasons that
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to replace the generic turbofan
gas turbine engine of Ellis with the turbofan gas turbine engine
of Harper, since the engine of Harper will contain fan blades in
the event that a blade becomes detached (Harper ¶ 50). In so
doing, all mounts of Ellis would be connected at least indirectly
to all portions of the engine nacelle of Harper, including fan,
core and rigid containment casings and associated bulkheads.
Ans. 7. Appellants do not provide any arguments rebutting the Examiner’s
reasoning. Therefore, we are not apprised of Examiner error. Claims 27 and
28 depend from claim 22 and are not argued separately. For the reasons set
forth above, we sustain the rejection of claims 22, 27, and 28.

Claims 12-16 and 23-26
Claims 12-16 depend from claim 1 and claims 23-26 depend from
claim 22. Appellants’ sole argument regarding the rejection of claims 12-16
and 23-26 is that claims 12-15 are not obvious over Ellis and Harper for the
reasons provided for claim 1 and claims 23-25 are not obvious over Ellis and
Harper for the reasons provided for claim 22 and Stretton fails to remedy
perceived deficiencies in Ellis and Harper. Appellants have not argued
claims 16 and 26. Because we sustain the rejections of claims 1 and 22 for
the reasons discussed supra, there are no deficiencies for Stretton to cure as
Appeal 2010-012485
Application 11/785,826

7
to claims 1 and 22. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 12-16 and
23-26.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-16, and
18-28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc